Public Interest Group

March 27, 2001

https://www.smartertimes.com/372/public-interest-group

An article in the national section of today's New York Times reports on a debate over public access to chemical plant data. Environmental groups want the information to be public, but the government worries that terrorists could use the data to plan attacks, the Times says. The article quotes one advocate of additional disclosure of the information and describes him as "a spokesman for the public interest group OMB Watch." It's just ridiculous for the Times news department to label OMB Watch as a "public interest group." A quick check of the OMB Watch Web site shows that it is full of items with headlines like "Press Release: OMB Watch Opposes Bush Tax Cuts" and "OMB Watch strongly supports campaign finance reform, particularly the hard money contribution limits and soft money ban in the McCain-Feingold bill." The OMB Watch Web site also claims, "Over the last few years, OMB Watch, through its coalitional leadership, is credited with playing a crucial role in thwarting many of the proposals in the Contract with America, including the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution."

OMB Watch may claim that what it is doing is in the public interest, and the Times news department may be of the opinion that OMB Watch's activities are in the public interest. But there are millions of Americans who support the Bush tax cut, supported the Contract with America, and oppose the McCain-Feingold infringements on the First Amendment right of free speech. Those Americans are part of the public, too, and they, too, claim to be acting in the public interest. It would be more accurate and less slanted if, rather than calling OMB Watch a "public interest group," the Times would call it a private advocacy group that claims to have played a crucial role in blocking the Republican congressional agenda.

Slanted on Adarand: An article in the national section of today's New York Times reports on a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments in a case about a government affirmative action program challenged by Adarand Constructors. The Times article reports that "In September, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, said the program met the test and was constitutional." But the Times totally omits the fact that a federal district court judge, John Kane, had ruled that a Clinton administration effort to defend program was "fatuous" and "fallacious." Judge Kane noted that under the standards Adarand was challenging, "the Sultan of Brunei would qualify" as a "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" for government preference purposes. The Times also neglects to mention that the 10th Circuit has twice before been reversed by the Supreme Court on the Adarand case, once in 1995 in Adarand v. Pena, and again in 2000 in Adarand v. Slater. The Times account is slanted toward the 10th Circuit and against Adarand -- and, thus, toward racial preferences in awarding government contracts.

Attack on the First Amendment: The final paragraph of an article in the Times national section today reports that "The Senate today also defeated, 40 to 56, a proposed constitutional amendment by Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, to give Congress the power to place limits on campaign spending." The fact that 40 senators are ready to dismantle the First Amendment strikes Smartertimes.com as big news, and it sure would be nice if the Times would name them, tell its readers whether New York's senators were among them, and put the article on the front page. Imagine how the Times would play the news if 40 senators had voted in favor of a Constitutional amendment to reverse another Supreme Court decision -- like the one, say, limiting the ability of states to restrict abortions, or limiting prayer in schools.

Friedman's Folly: New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman today writes a suggested memo to Yasser Arafat from President Bush. "If you want to reverse the outcome of the 1967 war, and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, we will help you," Mr. Friedman suggests that Mr. Bush should say to Mr. Arafat. Smartertimes.com can't quite see what the American interest would be in turning Jerusalem's Old City back to exclusive Jordanian control and preventing Jews from worshipping at the Western Wall. That, after all, was the situation before the 1967 war, the war whose outcome Mr. Friedman is suggesting that the American president should help Mr. Arafat reverse.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free smartertimes.com mailing list